Improving EFL Learners’ Speaking Fluency through Authentic Oral...
Transcript of Improving EFL Learners’ Speaking Fluency through Authentic Oral...
Running head: SPEAKING FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Improving EFL Learners’ Speaking Fluency through Authentic Oral Production
Jairo Israel López Loyola, [email protected]
Guide: José Andrés Paredes Becerra, M.A. [email protected]
Presented as Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Magíster en Pedagogía de los Idiomas
Nacionales y Extranjeros con Mención en la Enseñanza de Inglés. CES: RPC-SO-25-N˚.416-
2016. Cohort 2017-2019. Guayaquil, April – 2019.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Abstract
This article reports the development of speaking fluency through authentic oral production
in a six-week action research study in a public high school in Guayaquil, Ecuador. The
methodology included a pre-test and a post-test that measured quantitative aspects of
student’s oral speech (speed, pauses, repetitions, and corrections), a survey with closed-
ended questions that collected learners’ perspectives towards their own speaking fluency,
and an interview that addressed students’ opinions towards the innovation and Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Twenty four students’ audio recordings were
analyzed and the results indicated that there was a significant increase of students’ speaking
fluency. Results also showed that student’s perspectives on the innovation were positive
since it raised awareness of their mistakes, helped them feel more confident, and let them
practice the target language with autonomy outside the school boundaries. However, some
considered that time and the lack of equipment and technological skills were issues that
made the activity look less pleasant. This paper affirms that authentic oral production,
facilitated by vlogging, helps students develop speaking fluency.
Keywords: speaking, fluency, authentic production, vlogging, high school level
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Resumen
Este artículo trata sobre el desarrollo de fluidez oral a través de la producción de discursos
auténticos en un estudio de investigación-acción de seis semanas en un colegio público de
Guayaquil, Ecuador. La metodología incluyó un pre-examen y un post-examen que midió
los aspectos cuantitativos del discurso oral del estudiante (rapidez, pausas, repeticiones y
correcciones), una encuesta con preguntas cerradas que recogieron la percepción de los
estudiantes acerca de su propia fluidez oral y una entrevista que abordó las opiniones de los
estudiantes sobre la innovación y las Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación (TICs).
Las grabaciones de audio de veinticuatro estudiantes fueron analizadas y los resultados
indicaron que hubo un incremento significativo de su fluidez oral. Los resultados también
demostraron que la opinión de los estudiantes sobre la innovación fue positiva ya que les
hizo notar sus errores, les ayudó a sentirse más seguros y les permitió practicar la lengua
objetivo con autonomía fuera de la escuela. Sin embargo, algunos consideraron que el
tiempo, la falta de equipo apropiado y de destrezas tecnológicas fueron elementos que
hicieron la actividad menos placentera. Este artículo afirma que la producción de discursos
auténticos, facilitada por el vlogging, ayuda a los estudiantes a desarrollar fluidez oral.
Palabras clave: oral, fluidez, producción auténtica, vlogging, colegio
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Improving EFL Learners’ Speaking Fluency through Authentic Oral Production
Learning English has gained great relevance since it is the main language used among
foreign language speakers. It is used in workshops, seminars, research, and other aspects of
the field of education (Miftahussurur, 2018). Furthermore, English is used worldwide among
people from different countries, ethnics, and social backgrounds as a mean to interact on a
daily basis (Dewi, 2015; Mukminin, Ali, & Ashari, 2015). Nowadays, this perspective is not
only shared by professionals and educators, but also by high school English as a foreign
language (EFL) learners.
Many language learners agree that the ultimate purpose of learning a language is to
“develop proficiency in speaking and communicative efficiency” (Rahman & Deviyanti,
2018). This would be possible only if the educational systems provide a regulatory
framework that facilitates the acquisition of speaking competence. In this regard, the
Ecuadorian English Language Learning Standards establish that at the end of high school
students must be able to get involved in conversations about their everyday life fluently
(Ministerio de Educación, 2012).
Teachers and EFL learners experience different limitations in the Ecuadorian
education system. Making connections with students’ background experiences is one of the
lowest parameters considered in classes (Naula, 2016). It is known that using the target
language in authentic and meaningful tasks has a significant impact on language
development (Richards, 2015; Swain, 2000). However, in classroom-based learning,
teachers usually focus on linguistic instruction rather than on the practical use of the
language (Arevalo as cited in Calle, Calle, Argudo, Moscoso, Smith, & Cabrera, 2012). In
respect to this, Richards (2015) argues that a classroom environment lacks authenticity, and
states that learning can happen in a scenario different from school.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Another issue is that not every student has the same opportunity to interact. In a
research study carried out in two cities of Ecuador, Briones and Ramírez (2011) found out
that most of the time teachers dominate the classes with monologues, interacting only with
the students with higher level of the target language. This situation prevents students with
lower speaking skills from practicing English in class and developing language competence.
Sari (2017) points out that learners can lack speaking skills even when their knowledge
about the use of language is good (word and sentence formation, for example). The author
makes a direct connection between this issue and the lack of confidence and motivation.
Students who lack speaking skills feel reluctant to participate actively. This might prevent
them from acquiring a foreign language due to the fear of being mocked or criticized by
their classmates (Miller, 2003; Krashen, 2013). Therefore, there is a direct link between
confidence and developing speaking skills.
The use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTSs) has proven to be a
positive feature in education, making the content more accessible to learners (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006). Besides, technology fosters a positive attitude on students and helps them
develop critical thinking skills (Ilter, 2009). This will not only depend on the
implementation of ICTs, but on how effective the teacher is when using these tools in order
to encourage students’ engagement.
Teachers also face challenges that may prevent some of them from using ICTs in EFL
classrooms. Looking for authentic materials as well as learning how to handle hardware and
software take a high extra effort (Abunowara, 2016). However, according to Solano,
Cabrera, Ulehlova, and Espinoza (2017) using traditional teaching approaches, avoiding
ICTs, slows down the development of communicative competence in a foreign language.
The same authors explain that 9 out of 10 students agree that using technological tools has
helped improve their English language proficiency.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Youtube represents a great source of native, authentic input. Video logs or vlogs, for
example, are a democratic way of communication and a way to create meaningful, enjoyable
products for students (Sari, 2017). Students that make vlogs as part of their English classes,
gradually gain confidence and participate more in speaking activities regardless their
complexity. Safitri and Khoiriyah (2017) reviewed a series of studies and reported that only
watching vlogs as a mean of input is not enough since participants consider that most
vloggers’ backgrounds differ from their culture; hence, the task itself fails to be authentic if
students do not produce their own recordings.
Literature Review
Fluency
Different authors agree that fluency is the ability to keep a natural conversation,
without many pauses, and using a small number of fillers (Fillmore, 1979; Lennon 1990).
Fillmore adds that the speaker must use the language creatively being able to use metaphors
and other literary resources. In addition, Lennon states that a fluent person is accurate when
speaking while Richards (2009) gives more importance to ongoing communication over
communicative competence. In summary, fluency is the ability to use a language naturally
and effectively without many fillers and pauses.
Segalowitz (2010) makes a differentiation of three facets of fluency. Cognitive fluency
involves the mental processes behind the speaker’s ability to communicate. Utterance
fluency relates to the observable characteristics of fluency; these are speed, breakdown, and
repair. The speed is conceived as the mean of syllables pronounced, the breakdown as the
number the silent pauses, filled pauses and the mean length of silent pauses, and the repair as
the number of repetitions and corrections. Perceived fluency refers to the reaction of the
listener towards the linguistic and nonlinguistic features of the speaker’s speech. This
research work focused on utterance fluency.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Authentic production
In language acquisition, authenticity refers to the use of material taken from real
contexts, intended for native-speakers, rather than specially made for language learners (Van
Lier, 1996). According to Richards (2001), English instruction must be delivered in such a
way that students’ performances represent real world situations. In this regard, the output
that students produce in class must reveal their own identity in such a way that learners will
be able to use what they have learned in other contexts outside the classroom boundaries.
Richards (2015) also points out that authenticity is regularly affected by different features of
classroom-based learning, such as big size classrooms, time limitation, teachers’ low
English proficiency, and test-driven curriculum.
Swain (2000, p. 99) argues that “student’s meaningful production of language [output]
would … seem to have a potentially significant role in language development”. On the other
hand, Krashen (1998, p. 180) claims that comprehensible output “does not make a real
contribution to linguistic competence”. However, authentic production is significant
because, even if it does not lead to acquisition by itself, it (1) is a means by which students
get input from the teacher or their partners, (2) helps learners notice their own mistakes and
errors to improve production skills, and finally (3) it is the only way a teacher can assess
students’ learning success (Ellis, 2005).
For the research purposes, authenticity will be seen as a key characteristic of vlogging.
Talking about their everyday life or topics of their interest, students have the opportunity to
use the target language in a real world context. Learners, do not only develop
communicative skills but they also get used to sharing their insights in English as they
would in their native language.
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Drigas and Ioannidou argue that Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs) are all kinds of technologies that provide people the opportunity of receiving,
manipulating, and sharing information (2013). According to Castaño and Cabero (2013), the
use of ICTs has contributed to interaction due to the advent of mobile devices, cloud
computing, and the progressive development of new software applications. Talking about
language instruction, the implementation of ICTs enhances collaboration, facilitates
communication, and the delivery of teacher-student feedback and among peers (Bustos &
Coll, 2010). For this study, ICTs will be considered as a group of tools that enable students
to use the target language outside the school boundaries, at their own pace, and provides
them with multiple opportunities to assess themselves and their classmates.
Vlogging
Vlogging derives from blogging and refers to the act of recording videos of oneself
discussing any topic and uploading it to a video hosting website such as Youtube (Snelson,
2015; Kirschner in Safitiri & Khoiriyah, 2017). While a blog (web-log) relates to a website
with small articles, a vlog (video-log) does it to a website composed of a collection of small
videos. One of the characteristics of vlogs is that vloggers can produce them in a variety of
contexts and settings without the need of expensive equipment (Snelson, 2015). Besides,
vlogging provides the opportunity to share and interact with different audiences regardless if
their main purpose is to have fun, to improve their speaking skills, or just to connect with
family and friends.
Vlogging gives students more time to organize their ideas and practice several times
before obtaining a final product (Jaramillo, 2016). Furthermore, it raises learner’s awareness
of their own mistakes and helps them focus on how to structure their sentences when
speaking in other contexts.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
This article raises the possibility of improving EFL students’ speaking fluency through
authentic oral production using online video hostings such as Youtube. Two questions will
be answered by the end of this research: To what extent does authentic oral production
improve fluency? What is the perspective of students towards authentic oral production?
Innovation
The innovation was applied to 24 participants whose English proficiency level was
B1.1. The innovation was part of a lesson plan that observed backwards design principles
(see Appendix A). At the end of the course, the students planned, recorded, and uploaded
vlogs to Youtube.
At the beginning, the teacher included training lessons in order to familiarize the
student with the innovation. Such training lessons consisted in introducing students to the
main concepts of vlogging. The tasks encouraged students to develop their understanding
about these concepts by combining their previous knowledge with their classmates’. The
projection of samples from Youtube allowed students to have a better idea of what vlogs
look like.
Once students were acquainted with the innovation, the training lessons inducted
students on how to plan and perform the content of their speech. The students gathered in
groups and followed instructions extracted from a website specialized in providing steps and
tutorials. In this part, they did not record their performances. They only made a vlog drill in
front of their classmates. There were opportunities for feedback inside the groups and among
the different groups.
After the vlog drill, students planned, and recorded one preliminary version of a vlog
in groups during the class hour. At this time, the teacher monitored each stage to produce a
vlog. During the planning stage, the students used the computer laboratory to do their
research work about a topic given by the teacher.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Then in the recording stage, they recorded their videos outside the classroom but
inside the school boundaries. This way, students could look for places where they would not
be interrupted, where the illumination was appropriate, or there were not sounds that
affected the recording of their videos. Students practiced and recorded their video as many
times as they needed before they submitted it to the teacher.
At the end of the training lessons, students planned, recorded, and uploaded one vlog
on their own. For this, they created a Youtube channel and shared its link with their partners.
Since uploading a video to a hosting took a considerable amount of time and a fast Internet
connection, the students had to upload their videos in the computer laboratory of the school.
The next class, the teacher projected the students’ videos to the class. There were chances
for feedback after each video, orally and by commenting on the different Youtube channels.
After the training stage, as part of the lesson plan, each week the participants had to
prepare a vlog entry related to the topics seen in class and to upload it to Youtube. These
vlogs were opportunities to use the target language authentically. At the end of the lesson
plan, as part of the summative assessment, students published a vlog entry giving their
answer to a question that demanded them to express their opinion about the main topic of
the lesson plan.
Methodology
This work was an action-research with the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data.
In this type of research, the teacher identifies an aspect of the teaching-learning practice that
needs to be solved or improved, then collects meaningful student data in order to use it as
“the basis for well-informed educational decision-making” (Mertler, 2016, p. 3). The
researcher followed this process in this study.
Setting and participants
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
The participants were 24 students from a public school in Guayaquil, Ecuador; only
four of them were male. Their English proficiency level was B1.1 according to which
learners must be able to participate in conversations about different topics of their life and
the world in general (Council of Europe, 2003). They were in the 3rd course of the
baccalaureate in sciences and had five periods of 40 minutes of English classes per week.
They were also part of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP), which
means they met a standard profile: inquirers, communicators, and risk takers among others
(International Baccalaureate Organization, 2016).
Regarding technology use among students, all the participants had a computer at home
and only one of them did not have access to the Internet. Four students did not have a
smartphone and twenty three students considered that were moderately or highly skilled in
their use. Twelve students accessed to the Internet mostly from their phones. Nineteen
students reported that they used their phones for learning purposes and two said they never
used them for school. Four students indicated that they had already uploaded videos of
themselves talking about any topic in Spanish to the Internet; two of them had uploaded
their videos to Youtube. Only four students were familiarized with the term vlogging.
Instruments
Quantitative Data
The students filled a demographic survey that consisted of 15 closed-ended questions
adapted from Christensen and Knezek’s Construct validity for the teacher’s attitudes toward
computers questionnaire (2009). The research used only the items that addressed student’s
background and added others that related to the use of hardware and applications involved in
the innovation (see Appendix B). The demographic survey provided information about the
sample’s access to the equipment and technology needed for the innovation and their skills
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
in using them. The instrument also addressed the participants’ use of mobile devices for
learning.
To determine to what extent authentic oral production improves fluency, the
researcher applied a speaking pre-test and a post-test. The researcher considered a twenty-
second extract of a speaking test that followed the International Baccalaureate’s Internal
Assessment oral guidelines (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2015). The research
measured three quantifiable aspects of utterance fluency: speed, breakdown, and repair
(Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005).
The three aspects were represented by six acoustic measures; mean length of syllables,
number of silent pauses, number of filled pauses, mean length of silent pauses, number of
repetitions, and number of corrections. Table 1 shows how each calculation was made.
Table 1
Utterance fluency aspects, acoustic measures, and calculation
Aspect No. Acoustic measures Calculation
Speed 1 Mean of syllables Number of syllables/
spoken time
Breakdown 2 Number of silent pauses Number of silent pauses
/spoken time
3 Number of filled pauses Number of filled pauses /
spoken time
4 Mean length of silent pauses Total length of silent
pauses /number of silent
pauses
Repair 5 Number of repetitions Number of repetitions/
spoken time
6 Number of corrections Number of corrections/
spoken time
From “What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs” by Bosker,
Pinget, Quené & De Jong, 2013.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
The perception of the students towards the innovation was measured with a 12 closed-
ended survey with a Likert scale which was applied before and after the implementation (see
Appendix C). The items of the survey addressed the participants’ opinion of their own
fluency and the innovation. It was adapted from different studies on the use of ICTs for
learning purposes (Anil, 2016; Charles & Issifu, 2015; MacKeogh, 2003). A Chronbach’s
Alpha of 0.728 indicated that the survey was internally consistent and each of its items
contributed with unique information.
Qualitative data
A semi-structured interview helped the researcher get a deeper insight on students’
perspectives of the innovation. It was applied to a smaller sample of six participants who
were selected according to their results in the quantitative instruments. Two who had the
same results in both, the pretest and posttest, two who had a moderate improvement, and the
two students with the highest improvement. Their English teacher conducted the interview
individually inside the educational institution in school hours.
This interview included six open-ended questions and were adapted from interviews
conducted in research works that studied learners perspectives on the use of Youtube and
vlogging to improve students’ confidence to speak English, and the use of ICTs for learning
purposes (Sari 2017; So, Shin, Wong, Seo, & Davaasuren, 2017). It was applied after the
innovation (see appendix D).
Data Collection and Analysis
Quantitative
To determine the effectiveness of the innovation, the researcher contrasted the results
of the speaking pretest and posttest. The value of the effect size made it possible to
determine the impact of authentic oral production on the development of speaking fluency.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
The researcher analyzed the perspective of students collected in the survey and
described the results of items 1-4 which relate to learners’ opinions towards their own
fluency. The results for items 5-12 are shown in Appendix E.
Qualitative
After recording and transcribing the interviews, it was possible to obtain in depth
positive and negative opinions which were organized in categories as well. This led to the
identification of the students’ engagement and motivation during the implementation of the
innovation; how motivated, confident or reluctant they feel when participating in vlogging.
Results
The first question to answer was to what extent authentic oral production helps
students improve speaking fluency.
Table 2 shows that the participants increased their speed in 21% (M= 2.44 to 2.95),
and reduced the number of silent pauses in 45% (M= 0.16 to M= 0.09), reduced filled pauses
in 29% (M= 0.14 to M= 0.10), reduced repetitions in 48% (M= 0.13 to M= 0.07), and
reduced corrections in 34% (M= 0.07 to M= 0.04). With a confidence interval of 95%, the
Sig. (P) 0.000 shows that this difference is statistically highly significant (P < 0.001) and is
not consequence of random chance.
As Table 2 shows, the average effect size of the innovation was 1.01. This result
indicates that vlogging contributed to the development of speaking fluency, considering
Cohen’s (1988) suggestions that > 0.8 represents a large effect. Analyzing the values of each
acoustic measure independently, the innovation had a large impact on the increment of speed
(0.93), the reduction of silent and filled pauses (1.5 and 0.90), and word repetition (1.57).
However, there is only an intermediate effect on the results of the length of silent pauses
(0.54) and corrections (0.60).
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Table 2
Pre-test and Post-test results
PRETEST POSTTEST
Aspect Acoustic measures
N M Sd M Sd Md Sig.
(P) Es
Speed Mean of syllables
24 2.44 0.48 2.95 0,42 -0.52 0.000 0.93
Breakdown
Number of silent pauses 24 0.16 0.06 0.09 0,04 0.07 0.000 1.50
Number of filled pauses
24 0.14 0.07 0,10 0.05 0.04 0.001 0.90
Mean length of silent
pauses
24 0.40 0.16 0.58 0.20 -0.18 0.000 0.54
Repair Number of repetitions 24 0.13 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.000 1.57
Number of corrections
24 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.000 0.60
PRE-TEST POST-TEST
Total 24 0.56 0.14 0.64 0.14 -0.08 0.000 1.01
Note: N= sample M= mean Sd= standard deviation Md: mean difference Sig (P):
Significance Es= effect size
The second question to answer is what the perspectives of students towards vlogging
are. For this purpose, the research included a survey and an interview.
Table 3 shows that the students’ general perspective of their own fluency improved
from the initial stage (M=2.75) to the end of the intervention (M=3.42) in 24%, being the
reduction of word repetition the highest item with a 29% and their speed the lowest one with
a 17%. A p value of 0.000 shows that this difference did not happen by chance.
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics for students’ perspectives about their speaking fluency
Pre-survey Post-survey
Items M Sd M Sd Md Sig.
(P)
1. I consider that I speak
English with an
appropriate speed 2.88 0.85 3.38 0.71 -0.50 0.000
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
2. I consider that I don’t
make many pauses when
I speak English. 2.50 0.72 3.25 0.61 -0.75 0.000
3. I consider that I don’t
repeat words when I
speak in English. 2.58 0.97 3.33 0.57 -0.75 0.000
4. I consider that I don’t
reformulate sentences
constantly when I speak
in English. 3.04 0.75 3.71 0.88 -0.67 0.000
Pre-survey Post-survey
Total 2.75 0.82 3.42 0.69 -0.67 0.000
Note: M= mean Sd= standard deviation Md: mean difference Sig (P): Significance
The open-ended interview led to the identification of twenty positive opinions
regarding the innovation. The researcher divided them into 5 categories: speaking skills,
affective, technology, timing, and autonomy. The opinions are detailed in table 4.
Table 4
Students’ positive opinions about the innovation
Aspects Categories Total
Speaking
skills I think that now I speak faster than before (s2 and s4) 2
I think that I don't repeat words as I did before. (s1, s2, and s5) 3
I raised awareness of my mistakes by rewatching the videos. (s2) 1
Affective I felt comfortable doing the activity (s1 and s5) 2
I eventually felt more confident when speaking (s3) 1
Talking about real life issues made the activity more meaningul
to me (s4 and s6) 2
Technology Using new technologies helps me to learn better. (s1 and s5) 2
Vlogging combines technology I am familiar with (S1 and s4) 2
Timing I liked that I had enough time to prepare my speech before I
recorded the video. (s4) 1
Autonomy I can practice my speaking skills outside school. (s1 and s4) 2
I can use other vloggers' videos on Youtube as a guide. (s5) 1
I can do it at any place and at any time before the submitting
deadline. (s2) 1
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Total 20
In spite of the positive opinions of the innovation, some students also reported
negative perspectives about it. Regarding the effect of vlogging on fluency, one student
stated not having seen a big improvement since the initial stage. Two students affirmed that
they felt embarrassed of being watched online, one stated that being aware of committing
mistakes all the time was an issue, and another student stated feeling anxiety. Students also
mentioned three negative aspects about the use of ICTs; the extra effort that it takes to learn
how to use a new technology, the lack of appropriate equipment, and the lack of fast internet
connection. Finally, three students affirmed that the whole process of vlogging also requires
a lot of time, starting from the preparation of the topic, recording the video (including the
several discarded attempts), and uploading it to the Internet.
Discussion
The study revealed that, after six weeks of implementation, the authentic oral
production contributed to the development of speaking fluency. The highest impact the
innovation had on fluency is on speed since students increased the number of syllables they
pronounce in a given time. Besides, though in a discreet grade, students also decreased the
number of silent and filled pauses they made. The study also showed that after different
sessions of vlogging, students decreased the number of corrections. The multiple video
recording sessions made them more aware of their own mistakes when speaking. According
to Ellis (2005), noticing one’s mistakes and errors helps learners improve their production
skills.
An unusual finding was that even though students reduced the number of silent and
filled pauses, the mean length of silent pauses increased. It is possible that during the
intervention, students preferred to elongate the moments of silence as a strategy to avoid
using fillers or repeating words. This would have given students more time to think and
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
make sure of what they were going to say before speaking again. A low number of
corrections and fillers are characteristics of a fluent conversation (Fillmore, 1979; Lennon
1990).
Students who felt comfortable with vlogging also noticed that their speaking fluency
increased after its implementation. These results agree with Solano, Cabrera, Ulehlova, and
Espinoza’s (2017) studies which affirm that technological tools help students improve
English language proficiency. On the other hand, the student that affirmed not having
improved in fluency also reported feeling embarrassed during the activity. This is highly
related to Miller (2003) and Krashen’s (2013) ideas that the fear of being mocked and lack
of confidence have a negative impact on the development of speaking skills.
The findings also indicate that students considered that vlogging demanded them to
use the target language authentically making the activity more meaningful than others.
Swain explains that meaningful output has the potential to help students develop a foreign
language (2000).
The use of ICTs proved to be positive since it made information more accessible and
fostered learner’s autonomy. The findings demonstrated that students found positive how
easy they could access to content for learning purposes such as examples and tutorials.
Students also reported as positive the possibility to work at any time and at any place. This
agrees with Richard’s (2016) statement that students make progress in their spoken English
when they are provided with opportunities to use it outside the classroom boundaries.
Conclusions
The aims of this research were to determine if authentic oral production contributes to
the development of speaking fluency and to describe the students’ perspectives regarding
this innovation. Teachers, in their role as facilitators, have the responsibility to encourage
learners to become autonomous learners and new technologies open up a world of
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
possibilities to learn independently. Authentic oral production provides students the
opportunity to use the target language at their own pace, become more aware of their
performance constantly, and take actions in order to improve their speech. Findings in this
study state that this innovation helps students improve speaking fluency in terms of speed,
and reduction of pauses, word repetition and corrections.
This research work may open new horizons for the use of ICTs to create authentic
output in EFL instruction in public schools. Findings show that students who get involved in
vlogging show interest and enthusiasm because they consider such tasks as authentic and
meaningful. Besides, vlogging does not require expensive equipment or software that the
majority of students are not familiar with.
However, the lack of technology management skills and proper equipment can make
vlogging look more difficult and affect students emotionally due to their concern to
accomplish the assignments on time. Teachers who implement vlogging, just as any other
innovation that includes ICTs, should consider these issues and make sure that students are
capable to do the different activities. Programmed schedules to use the school computer labs
(when available) could be a solution for those students who have limitations regarding
technology at home.
Another issue is the stress that students may feel toward being watched on video
hosting sites like Youtube or social networks like Facebook. The study revealed that it could
affect the perspective of their own performance.
Limitations
The present study, as well as all research studies, had certain limitations. The present
research work was limited in sample (N=24), and a larger group would lead to more robust
findings. This study didn’t include the data of a control group. If this information were
available, it would be possible and determinate to what extent vlogging contributes to
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
improve fluency in a group compared to another in which the innovation hasn’t been
implemented. The participants were all students of the IBDP, which means they were
expected to have a standard profile. This fact increased the chances to find students more
motivated to participate actively in this course compared to an average classroom. This
study focused on three aspects of fluency; speed, breakdown, and corrections, following
Filmore’s (1979) and partially Lennon’s (1990) criteria. It does not address other facets that
could indicate speaking skills competence such as accuracy or comprehension.
Technology represented an issue when students were not familiar with software
needed to record, edit, and upload videos. The effort and time that it took to learn how to use
new technology made the activity look less pleasant. The situation got even worse when the
equipment they had is was not suitable for the innovation. Also, some students considered
that the time they spent recording each video until they felt satisfied with their product made
the activity more difficult than others.
Recommendations
A study with a larger number of participants would offer a more accurate perspective of how
authentic oral production contributes to the development of speaking fluency. Also, since the
participants had specific profile specifications, a study conducted in a more heterogeneous
group would increase the confidence to generalize findings to all the population. A research
work with instruments that measure other aspects of speaking would give an idea of the
impact of the innovation on speaking skills competence in general.
An in-depth demographic study that contrasts the students’ access to technology, and
their performance before and after the innovation would offer a clear view of how the lack
of technology affects the development of English language skills. Furthermore, future
research about the positive and negative feelings that students experience during the activity
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
would provide a better understanding of the effects of vlogging on the emotional facet of
learners.
Future research regarding how well equipped public schools are in terms of ICTs and
how skilled are students using these would offer a more accurate perspective of to what
extent the Ecuadorian system is prepared for this kind of innovations. It would also provide
valuable information to develop plans that in the long run help schools create the conditions
to seize the opportunities that ICTs could provide to their students.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
References
Abunowara, A. M. (2016). Using technology in EFL/ESL classroom. International Journal
of Humanities and Cultural Studies , 1(2), 7-23. Retrieved from
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/article/download/29/26
Anil, B. (2016). Top-Up Students Second Language Talk Time through Vlogs. Indonesian
Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 1(2), 129-143. doi: 10.21462/ijefll.v1i2.9
Bosker, H. R., Pinget, A. F., Quené, H., Sanders, T., & De Jong, N. H. (2013). What makes
speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language
Testing, 30(2), 159-175. doi: 10.1177/0265532212455394
Briones, M. & Ramírez, M. (2011). Using Instructional Coaching to implement five reading
strategies in two high schools (Master’s thesis, Casa Grande, Guayaquil, Ecuador).
Retrieved from
http://dspace.casagrande.edu.ec:8080/bitstream/ucasagrande/237/1/Tesis353BRIc.pdf
Bustos, A., & Coll, C. (2010). Los entornos virtuales como espacios de enseñanza y
aprendizaje. Una perspectiva psicoeducativa para su caracterización y análisis [Virtual
environments as teaching-learning settings. A psycho-educational perspective for its
categorization and analysis]. Revista mexicana de investigación educativa, 15(44),
163-184. Retrieved from
http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-
66662010000100009&lng=es&tlng=es
Calle, A., Calle, S., Argudo, J., Moscoso, E., Smith, A., & Cabrera, P. (2012). Los
profesores de inglés y su práctica docente: Un estudio de caso de los colegios fiscales
de la ciudad de Cuenca, Ecuador. [English teachers and their teaching practices: A
case study of public high schools in Cuenca, Ecuador]. Maskana, 3(2), 1-17. Retrieved
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
from
http://dspace.ucuenca.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/5405/1/MASKANA%203201.pdf
Castaño, C. & Cabero, J. (2013). Enseñar y aprender en entornos m-learning [Teaching and
learning in m-learning environments]. Madrid: Síntesis.
Charles, B. A., & Issifu, Y. (2015). Innovation in education: Students’ perceptions of
implementing ICT in learning in second-cycle institutions in Ghana. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 197(1), 1512-1519. Retrieved from
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82486919.pdf
Christensen, R. W., & Knezek, G. A. (2009). Construct validity for the teachers’ attitudes
toward computers questionnaire. Journal of computing in Teacher Education, 25(4),
143-155. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ844212.pdf
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Council of Europe. (2003). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dewi, A. (2015). Perception of English: A study of staff and students at universities in
Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Drigas, A., Ioannidou, R. (2013). Special Education and ICTs. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(2), 41-47. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v8i2.2514
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224. doi:
10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler & W. S. Wang (Eds.),
Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85–101). New
York: Academic Press.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Ilter, B. (2009). Effect of technology on motivation in EFL classrooms. Turkish online
journal of distance education, 10(4). 136-158. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506782.pdf
International Baccalaureate Organization. (2015). Language ab initio guide: update to first
exams 2015. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org
International Baccalaureate Organization. (2016). Guide to the International Baccalaureate
Programme. Retrieved from
https://www.ibo.org/globalassets/publications/recognition/dpguideforuniversities-
en.pdf
Jaramillo, P. (2016). The effect of blending learning using video-based blogs and the
speaking skill development in students attending 1st year of bachelor at "Marcel
Laniado de Wind" high school, in Machala, in the first term, 2015-2016 School year
(Master’s thesis. Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE, Quito, Ecuador).
Retrieved from http://repositorio.espe.edu.ec/handle/21000/11737
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output. System, 26(2), 175-182. doi: 10.1016/S0346-
251X(98)00002-5
Krashen, S. (2013). Second Language Acquisition: Theory, Application and Some
Conjectures. Mexico City: Cambridge University Press.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language
Learning, 40(3), 387–417. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00669.x
MacKeogh, Kay (2003). Student perceptions of the use of ICTs in European education:
report of a survey. Oscail - National Distance Education Centre, Dublin City
University. Retrieved from
http://doras.dcu.ie/569/1/mackeogh_icts_european_education.pdf
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Mertler, C. A. (2016). Leading and facilitating educational change through action research
learning communities. Journal of Ethical Educational Leadership, 3(3), 1-11.
Retrieved from http://cojeel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/JEELVol3No3.pdf
Miller, J. (2003). Audible Difference: ESL and Social Identity. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics 26(2) 124–126. doi: 10.1075/aral.26.2.10ham
Ministerio de Educación. (2012). Estándares de Calidad Educativa [Standards of
Educational Quality] Retrieved from https://educacion.gob.ec/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2012/09/estandares_2012_ingles_opt.pdf
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Mukminin, A., Ali, R., & Ashari, M. (2015). Voices from within: Student teachers’
experiences in English academic writing socialization at one Indonesian teacher
training program. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1394-1407. Retrieved from
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss9/2
Naula, R. (2016). Problems in the acquisition of English as a foreign language in tenth
grade in Técnico Salesiano high school (Master’s thesis, Universidad de Cuenca,
Ecuador). Retrieved from http://dspace.ucuenca.edu.ec/handle/123456789/25995
Rahman, A., & Deviyanti, R. (2018). The correlation between students’ motivation and their
English speaking ability. Jurnal Ilmiah ESAI, 6(1), 66-83. doi:
10.25181/esai.v6i1.1015
Richards, J. (2001). Postscript: The ideology of TESOL. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.),
The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 213-
217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Richards, J.C. (2009). Teaching listening and speaking from theory to practice. Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J.C. (2015). The Changing Face of Language Learning: Learning beyond the
Classroom. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 46(1), 5-
22. doi: 10.1177/0033688214561621
Sari, P. (2017). Using Vlog in the Youtube Channel as a Means to Improve Students’
Motivation and Confidence to Speak English in Intermediate 1 Level of LB-LIA
Jambi. International Journal of Language Teaching and Education, 1(1), 38-44. doi:
10.22437/ijolte.v1i1.4596
Safitri, N., & Khoiriyah, I. (2017). Students’ Perceptions on the Use of English Vlog (Video
Blog) to Enhance Speaking Skill. ASEAN/Asian Academic Society International
Conference Proceeding Series, 5(1), 240-247. Retrieved from
aasic.org/proc/aasic/article/download/298/295
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. New York:
Routledge.
Snelson, C. (2015). Vlogging about school on YouTube: An exploratory study. New Media
& Society, 17(3), 321-339. doi: 10.1177/1461444813504271
Soa, H., Shin, C., Wong, L., Seoa, M., & Davaasuren, B. (2017). Language Learning with
Mobiles, Social Media and Gamification in Mongolia: Possibilities and Challenges.
Workshop Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computers in
Education 299-307. New Zealand: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Retrieved from
http://www.apsce.net/icce/icce2017/140.115.135.84/icce/icce2017/sites/default/files/pr
oceedings/workshops/W6/Language%20Learning%20with%20Mobiles%20Social%2
0Media%20and%20Gamification%20in%20Mongo.pdf
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Solano, L., Cabrera, P., Ulehlova, E., & Espinoza, V. (2017). Exploring the Use of
Educational Technology in EFL Teaching: A case Study of Primary Education in the
South Region of Ecuador. Teaching English with Tehnology. 17(2), 77-86. Retrieved
from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1140683
Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and beyond: Mediating Acquisition through
Collaborative Dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second
Language Learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tavakoli, P. & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing.
In Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (239-277).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and
authenticity. London: Longman.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Appendix A
Lesson Plan
Institution:
Year of study:
Student description:
(include English
Level)
Professor:
Unit title:
Weeks:
Hours:
Veintiocho de Mayo
3rd Baccalaureate
Students are teenagers, ages 15-17. Most of them have an
intermediate English level (B1.1 CEFR standards). Boys and
girls; only 4 boys. They come from different sectors of the
city, mainly the north of Guayaquil. Most of them are
mestizos with a minority of Afro-Ecuadorian and native
Ecuadorians
Jairo López
“It’s a Brave New World”
5 weeks
24 periods
I. Transfer Goal (Stage 1)
Standards the unit will work with:
Speaking production B1: Sustain a straightforward description of a subject or a variety of matters
within the personal, educational, public, and vocational domains rather fluently, presenting it as a
linear sequence of points.
Speaking interaction B1: Exchange, check, and confirm information to deal with less routine
situations and explain why a problem has occurred. Enter unprepared into conversations on topics
that are familiar, of interest, or pertinent to everyday life within the personal, educational, public,
and vocational domain.
Goal:
I want my students to learn to plan, record and upload vlogs to video hosting platforms so that, in
the long run and on their own, they can share their ideas and defend their points of view about real
life issues fluently in the target language.
The standards of the unit are:
Breakdown of transfer goal
A. If we see and hear them
do this, they CAN transfer
this learning.
B. If we see and hear them
do this, then they
CANNOT (yet) transfer:
C. What I will commit to
doing differently in my
classroom to ensure my
results look like Column A.
Create and plan viable
arguments and support
their claims clearly
Make repetitive, vague,
and ambiguous statements.
Provide tasks that
encourage students to raise
awareness on real-life
topics and share their ideas
with their partners.
Incorporate new
technologies to share their
ideas on video hosting
platforms.
Not skilled at using new
technologies to share their
ideas online through vlogs.
Provide students with
training in vlogging and
with tasks that demand
them to create them on
their own.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Speak fluently with an
appropriate speed.
Speak making many
pauses, repeating words
and reformulating
sentences most of the time.
Provide students with
multiple opportunities to
practice and record vlogs.
II. Summative Performance Assessment Task (Stage 2)
Goal Share their position regarding a real-life issue and support their ideas
Role They are vloggers
Audience Their classmates, other students of their school, and Youtube suscribers.
Situation They will have to create a vlog answering the question: Has technology
improved our lives? Their choices are either to agree or disagree and explain
their reasons.
Performance They will create an individual video presentation explaining the positive and
negative effects that the development of technology has had in their lives.
Then they will submit the video to their Youtube channel so their classmates
and followers can watch it online.
Standards Their vlog should:
- Establish their position about the given question as well as negative and
positive effects of technology on their lives in a three to five minute video.
- Contain accurate and reliable information.
- Have an appropriate speed, without many pauses, and without repeating
words or reformulating sentences most of the time.
III. Knowledge and skills the students need to succeed in the assessment. (Stage 1)
What students will need to know The skills students will need to be able to
do
They will need to know what to include in
an oral presentation.
They will need to know a range of
vocabulary, expressions and connectors.
They will need to know new technologies
such as smartphones and Youtube.
They will need to be plan and perform an
oral presentation.
They will need to be able to communicate
clearly and fluently.
They will need to be able to use software in
order to record and upload videos on the
Internet.
IV. Essential Questions (Stage 1)
Essential questions support the transfer goal, signal inquiry, guide instruction, and can be
asked over and over throughout the unit without reaching a final answer.
1. What is the impact of vlogging and Youtube influencers on teenagers?
2. How does new technologies improve people’s lives in today’s world?
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
V. Learning Activities
Transfer goal:
I want my students to learn to plan, record and upload a vlogs to video hosting platforms so that,
in the long run and on their own, they can share their ideas and defend their points of view about
real life issues fluently in the target language.
Abbreviated Performance Task:
You are a speaker in a Teen Talk at your school. Create a video presentation explaining your
classmates your position regarding the following question: Has technology improved our lives?
Your choices are either to agree or disagree. Make sure to support your claim with positive and
negative aspects of technology. Your talk must last 5-10 minutes, include appropriate visuals, be
organized, and contain accurate and reliable information.
Learning Activities (from student’s perspective)
Intention
A
M
T
Week 1 – (5 periods)
Day 1 (2 periods) (80 minutes)
The students gather in groups and each group receives sticky notes
and a piece of paper with only 2 words on it; youtuber and vlogger.
They discuss about those words and their differences. Then they stick
their definitions on a wall with two columns, one for each word. They
do not need to write their names. (10 minutes)
The teacher chooses a couple notes and read them to their whole
class and students discuss which ones are right or wrong. (5 minutes)
Students watch 2 videos on Youtube. One by with regular content by
a youtuber, and another one by a vlogger. (7 minutes)
1. Life better than the past by Jose Luis Villalobos (vlog)
2. Past vs Present by Kawkawkins (regular content)
Then the students discuss whether their answers were right or wrong.
They try to elaborate their own concepts about a youtuber and a
vlogger. They also recall other examples of youtubers and vloggers
they already know. They share these findings with their classmates.
(15 minutes)
Students read “Life of a Youtuber” by Nicola Prentis. And they work
on a worksheet.
Homework: Students read at home “How to make a great first vlog”
in Wikihow. This information will be useful for the next class.
Day 2 (2 periods) (80 minutes)
Recap of concepts seen in the previous class. Youtube, youtuber,
vlog, vlogging, and vlogger. (5 minutes)
Students make groups. They discuss the homework reading “How to
make a great first vlog”. (5 minutes)
Students create a fake Youtube channel: name, type of content,
target. They must prepare a vlog drill introducing the channel in
class. It will not be recorded. It must not last more than 3 minutes.
(30 minutes)
Students present their vlog drill to the class. In order to create a vlog-
like setting, they can use their cellphones to play background music,
make backgrounds with cardboard. After each presentation, the
teacher and the rest of the students give oral feedback to the group.
This will help them enhance their strengths and work on their
weaknesses. (40 minutes)
Hook
Initiating
Initiating
Developing
Hook
Review
Initiating
Formative
assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Day 3 (1 period) (40 minutes)
Students watch a video “The dangers of vlogging by Niftyeee”
(Youtube Channel) 01:20 – 03:15. They discuss the advices that the
author gives to people who vlog every day. (7 minutes)
Students make groups and each group receives reading material
regarding how to vlog safely. They must discuss the content and
prepare a brief explanation of what the main ideas. They must focus
on the dangers of vlogging and what to do in order to do it
responsibly. (20 minutes)
1. How to vlog safely in the city
2. How to protect your info and be safe as a Youtuber
3. Staying safe on Youtube
4. How to keep your Youtube channel secure
5. Five tips for vlogging responsibly in Qatar
6. The debate: Would you let your child vlog?
Students share their ideas with the class and they must come up with
a set of rules of tips they should follow in order to vlog safely and
avoid dangerous situations. (17 minutes)
Week 2 – (4 periods)
Day 4 (2 periods) (80 minutes)
Recap of the previous class (5 minutes)
Students make pairs prepare a vlog entry. They do the planning and
research work in the computer lab. They can ask their partners or
their teacher for assistance. (35 minutes)
Students record their first vlog at school. They can choose any
location (40 minutes).
Students submit their vlog to their teacher.
Day 5 (2 periods) (80 minutes)
Recap of previous class. Students answer questions like: Did you like
it? Was it difficult? (5 minutes)
Vlogs projection in the computer lab. Students project their vlogs and
watch their partner’s work. They discuss what they like or what could
be improved in their partners’ vlogs. Then they comment on their
partners videos on Youtube. (60 minutes)
Students make pairs again and answer the following questions (5
minutes):
Did you feel more confident during this task than during the previous
one in groups?
Did you see any improvements in this vlog compared to the first task
in groups?
Do you think you are ready to plan and create a vlog on your own?
Explain.
The students share their thoughts with their classmates. (10 minutes)
Hook
Initiating
Developing
Formative
Assessment
Hook
Review
Formative
Assessment
Hook
Review
Formative
assessment
Closure
X
X
X
X
X
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Day 6 (1 periods) (40 minutes)
Students watch a 3-minute clip of The Jetsons meet the Flinstones. At
the end of the clip, the teacher asks students questions to check
comprehension: What was the video about? Why do you think the
Flinstones were surprised? What do you think is going to happen
next? Why are the Jetsons and the Flinstons so different? (10
minutes) 2. The teacher asks whether the students know how different
Guayaquil was 50 years ago. The teacher asks students to discuss in
pairs and write their thoughts and guesses on their notebook. (5
minutes) 3. The teacher shows a slideshow with pictures of Guayaquil in the
past that include means of transportation, clothing, technology, and
so. Students are encouraged to check their original guesses and
discuss the actual differences with their partner. (10 minutes)
4. The world in the 1950s: Students watch a movie scene from the
1950s. (15 minutes):
a. As a pre-activity, they have to predict what they will see
b. After watching the video they check the misconceptions they had
about the 1950s.
c. Discuss how different was the world in the 1950s from the present.
5. Vlog entry: At home, create a 2 minute vlog entry answering the
following:
What aspect of the 1950s surprised you? Why?
Week 3 – (5 periods)
Day 7 (2 periods) (80 minutes)
1. Recap of old Guayaquil and the video of the 1950s (5 minutes)
2. The teacher shows a video of the apartheid in South Africa and
students analyze the situation. The teacher prompts the questions:
How did things use to be like in South Africa during the apartheid?
What social issues did you identify? What other similar events can
you recall right now? What about Ecuador? Has something similar
happened in our country? (10 minutes)
3. Jigsaw: Students make 6 groups of 5 students, and each person is
given a text with one topic of the history of civil rights; women,
slavery, free speech, democracy, sanitation, right to life. After
reading, they extract main ideas and summarize it. Then they split
and form new groups so every new group has a specialist in each
topic. At the end they go back to their group and share ideas again.
At the end, they contrast the whole topics (past and present) in a
poster. The posters will be exhibited on the walls of the hall. (55
minutes) 4. Discussion about what human rights in Ecuador. Students relate
the situations in the texts with their reality (10 minutes)
5. Vlog entry: At home, create a 2 minute vlog entry answering the
following:
What do you think led to the change of these aspects in human rights
in some societies? Why do you think that the situation hasn’t changed
in others?
Day 8 (2 periods) (80 minutes)
Hook
Initiating
Developing
Formative
Assesment
Hook
Review
Initiating
Developing
Developing
Formative
Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
1. Recap of apartheid video, human rights texts, and human rights in
Ecuador. (7 minutes)
2. 1984 in 1948: Students read silently an extract of 1984 by George
Orwell. The book was written between 1947 and 1948 and tells the
story of a dystopia ruled by a dictator named “Big brother” in 1984.
The students must discuss on what that extract reveals about the use
of technology and human rights. (20 minutes)
2. Students are given pictures about different situations that occur
now that resemble Orwell’s passage: reality shows, dictatorship, and
so. Then, in pairs, they discuss which ones are familiar to them, what
they think about them and if they happen in Ecuador. (8 minutes)
3. Students check again the same extract of 1984 by George Orwell.
They imagine that they are Winston Smith, the main character, and
consider their lifestyle, rights, prohibitions, and lack of privacy.
Questions: What would you think? How would you feel? (5 minutes)
4. Groups share their thoughts with the whole class. 2-3 minutes per
group (6) (20 minutes)
5. Write a journal about your expectations in 40 years from now.
Make sure to answer the following questions: How do you think that
the world will be 2058? Do you think it will be better or worse? What
makes you think so? (20 minutes)
6. Vlog entry: At home, create a 2 minute vlog entry answering the
following:
What do you think that we can do in order to avoid a dystopia
described in the passage?
Day 9 (1 period) (40 minutes)
1. Recap of Orwell’s 1984 and dystopia (5 minutes)
2. First world problems (discussion): The students are divided into
groups and are given pictures with different problematic situations.
Ones are issues from today’s world (like running out of cell phone
battery) and others are old times’ problems (like not having water at
home). They are not told about this deliberate differentiation. They
must analyze the pictures and decide which ones are more critical.
The most critical will be given a six while the least one will be given
a one. (5 minutes)
3. The teacher tells a story of his own about a terrible day he had,
using pictures to illustrate it (projector). Students must identify which
situations that the teacher mentions could happen at any time in
history and which ones only in the present. (5 minutes)
4. Students are asked to check the pictures again and decide which
ones could have happened in the past, which ones only in the present,
and which ones both, in the past and in the present. (5 minutes)
5. Perform a short role-play about an old times problem or a “first
world problem”. (20 minutes)
6. Vlog entry: At home, create a 2 minute vlog entry answering the
following: Why do some situations or problems or needs look more
critical than others? Could we consider all modern time issues
insignificant?
Week 4 – (5 periods)
Hook
Review
Developing
Developing
Developing
Formative
Assessment
Hook
Review
Initiating
Developing
Formative
Assessment
Formative
Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Day 10 (1 period) (40 minutes)
1. Recap of first world problems (5 minutes)
2. The teacher shows a compilation video of grandpa Abe Simpsons
from The Simpsons complaining on modern times. The teacher
models examples about himself. Example: “In the past, The
Simpsons used to be funny, but now it’s kind of boring”. (10
minutes) 3. Then the students are given time to discuss in pairs about
something that has changed and they don’t like anymore. The teacher
gives examples of topics; sports, TV series, movies, artists, music,
the school, celebrations, etc. (5 minutes)
4. Students write as many complaints as they can on sticky notes and
paste them on the wall. Then the teacher asks students to pick a sticky
note different from theirs. (5 minutes)
5. Once they are back on their seat, volunteers read the “stolen”
sticky note and try to guess to whom that complaint belongs. The
person must answer if that’s correct. If so, he or she has to give a
more elaborated answer about his or her complaint. (5 minutes)
6. Insight reflection: Write about a specific aspect in your life that
used to be different. It might have changed for better or for worse.
Feel free to read it to the class, paste it on the classroom wall, or just
keep it for yourself. (10 minutes)
7. Vlog entry: At home, create a 2 minute vlog entry answering the
following: You might have listened to your parents or grandparents
say “things in the past were better”. Why do you think people believe
that old times were better than today?
Day 11 (1 period) (40 minutes)
1. Students make groups and are given the prompt: Has technology
improved our lives?
The have to decide whether the changes in this aspect has or hasn’t
improved their lives, prepare content that supports their ideas with
information from reliable sources, and create a vlog entry.
During this time, the students will be assigned a computer in the
English laboratory to do their research work to support their opinion.
(40 minutes)
During the rest of the week, and the weekend, the students will create
a vlog entry and upload it to their Youtube channel. They will have to
prepare themselves to show their entry to students from other courses
in the Computer laboratory.
Week 5 – (2 periods)
Day 12-13 (3 periods 160 minutes)
Students will project their videos in the Computer laboratory. The
audience will be their classmates from other courses of the IB
program. These students will be encouraged to create Youtube
accounts before the projection date. There will be 6 different sessions
in 2 days. In each session, groups of 20 students will watch 4 vlog
Hook
Review
Initiating
Developing
Developing
Formative
Assessment
Formative
Assessment
Summative
Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
entries and these students will be able to leave comments on Youtube
or on postits (in case they do not have a Youtube account yet).
Day 14 (1 period) (40 minutes)
Students reflect on what worked well and what didn’t work in their
performance during the presentations. Then they propose solutions to
make things work more effectively a next time.
Closure
X
Learning process: A = Acquisition, M = Meaning Making, T = Transfer
Intention: Hook, formative assessment, initiating, developing, review, closure, research, other.
Indicate Week 1, 2, etc. and number of hours.
VI. On-going Self-Assessment
As I reflect on student learning, what will I do if my plan is not yielding my expected results?
I’ve got used to applying insight activities by the end of a topic where the basic questions are;
What did you learn? What did you like the most? What did you dislike? Or how could you
improve it? This has helped me a lot to know how engaged my students feel or what they have
found challenging or useless. In case I notice a pattern that highlights a possible issue I try to
look for new ways to address that issue or ask myself if it is really necessary. Now, If I
noticed something while things are going on in the middle or the beginning of the plan, I
would ask students to make groups and work together on the problem, then we would look for
answers altogether. Sometimes the problem is that students still do not feel confident enough
and need more practice before they get into the elaboration part. In that case, I would offer
simpler versions of the task as a scaffolding and increase the level of difficulty as they get
better on it
This unit design process was adapted from the Guillot Design Process worksheet (2017)
Design from Your Goals based on Wiggins-McTighe Backward Design.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Appendix B
Demographic survey
Code: ______
a. Nationality (Nacionalidad) _________________
b. Sex (Sexo) Male (Masculino) ( ) Female (Femenino) ( )
c. Age (Edad): ( )
d. Etnics (Etnia)
White (Blanco) ( ) Afro-Ecuadorian (Afroecuatoriano) ( ) Mestizo (Mestizo) ( )
Native Ecuadorian (Nativo ecuatoriano) ( ) Other (Otro) ( ): ____________
e. Type of school (Tipo de institución): Public (Pública) ( ) Private (Privada) ( ) Fiscomisional (Co-funded) ( )
f. Grade (Curso)
1st Baccalaureate (1ero Bachillerato) ( )
2nd Baccalaureate (2do Bachillerato) ( )
3rd Baccalaureate (3ero Bachillerato) ( )
1. Number of class-periods per week (Número de periodos de clase por semana): ___________
2. Do you have a computer at home? (¿Tiene computadora en casa?)
Yes (Sí) ( ) No (No) ( )
3. Do you have access to the Internet at home? (¿Tiene acceso a internet en casa?)
Yes (Sí) ( ) No (No) ( )
4. How many hours a week do you use a computer (and/or the Internet) at home? (¿Cuántas horas
a la semana usa generalmente una computadora (y/o la Internet) en casa?)
_____ I don’t use a computer (No uso computadora)
_____1 hour (1 hora)
_____2-3 hours (2-3 horas)
_____4-7 hours (4-7 horas)
_____8-15 hours (8-15 horas)
_____16-30 hours (16-30 horas)
_____more than 30 hours (más de 30 horas)
5. Do you have a smartphone? (¿Tiene un smartphone?)
Yes (Sí) ( ) No (No) ( )
6. How do you consider your skills when using a smatphone? (Cómo consideraría su destreza usando
un smartphone?)
High (Alta) ( ) Intermediate (Media) ( ) Low (Baja) ( )
7. Do you have access to portable Internet? (any kind of plan) (¿Tiene acceso a internet portable?
(plan de datos o prepago))
Yes (Sí) ( ) No (No) ( )
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
8. How many hours a week do you use a smartphone? (Cuántas horas a la semana usa un
smartphone?)
_____ I don’t use a smartphone (No uso un smartphone)
_____1 hour (1 hora)
_____2-3 hours (2-3 horas)
_____4-7 hours (4-7 horas)
_____8-15 hours (8-15 horas)
_____16-30 hours (16-30 horas)
_____more than 30 hours (más de 30 horas)
9. How do you mostly access the Internet? (¿Cómo accede a internet mayormente?)
PC or laptop (Pc o computador portátil) ( ) Smartphone ( )
Cyber Café (Cyber) ( ) Other (Otro) ( ) ______________
10. How often do you use a smartphone for learning purposes? (¿Con qué frecuencia usa un smartphone
con fines de aprendizaje?)
_____ Every day (Diariamente) _____ Once a week (Una vez a la semana) _____ Una
vez al mes (Once a month) _____ Nunca (Never)
11. How often do you access Youtube per week? (¿Qué tan a menudo accede a Youtube a la semana?)
_____ I don’t access to Youtube (No accedo a Youtube)
_____1 hour (1 hora)
_____2-3 hours (2-3 horas)
_____4-7 hours (4-7 horas)
_____8-15 hours (8-15 horas)
_____16-30 hours (16-30 horas)
_____more than 30 hours (más de 30 horas)
12. How often do you access social networks per week? (¿Qué tan a menudo accede a redes sociales a
la semana?)
_____ I don’t access to social networks (No accedo a redes sociales)
_____1 hour (1 hora)
_____2-3 hours (2-3 horas)
_____4-7 hours (4-7 horas)
_____8-15 hours (8-15 horas)
_____16-30 hours (16-30 horas)
_____more than 30 hours (más de 30 horas)
13. Have you ever uploaded a video of yourself talking about any topic to the social networks? (¿Alguna vez ha subido un video suyo hablando de cualquier tema a redes sociales?)
Yes (Sí) ( ) No (No) ( )
14. Have you ever uploaded a video of yourself talking about any topic to Youtube or other
video hosting platforms? (¿Alguna vez ha subido un video suyo hablando de cualquier tema a Youtube u
otras plataformas para alojar videos?)
Yes (Sí) ( ) No (No) ( )
15. Are you familiar with vlogging? (¿Está familiarizado con el vlogging?)
Yes (Sí) ( ) No (No) ( )
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
This survey has been adapted from Christensen and Knezek’s Construct validity for the teacher’s
attitudes toward computers questionnaire (2009). The researcher has used only those items that
address student’s background and has added others that relate to the use of smarthpones and Youtube,
and social networks for vlogging.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Appendix C
Survey for students’ perspectives of their own fluency and ICTs
Strongly
agree
(Totalmente
de acuerdo)
Agree
(De
acuerdo)
Indifferent
(Indiferente)
Disagree
(En
desacuerdo)
Strongly
disagree
(Totalmente en
desacuerdo)
1. I consider that I speak
English with an appropriate
speed
(1. Considero que hablo inglés
a una velocidad apropiada.)
2. I consider that I don’t make
many pauses when I speak
English.
(2. Considero que no hago
muchas pausas cuando hablo en
inglés.)
3. I consider that I don’t repeat
words when I speak in English.
(3. Considero que no repito
palabras cuando hablo en
inglés.)
4. I consider that I don’t
reformulate sentences
constantly when I speak in
English.
(4. Considero que no reformulo
las oraciones constantemente
cuando hablo en inglés.)
5. I enjoy working with ICTs*
(5. Disfruto trabajar con TICs.)
6. I generally feel ok working
with something new with ICTs
(6. Generalmente me siento bien
al trabajar con algo nuevo en
TICS.)
7. I have a positive attitude
towards using ICTs
(7. Tengo una actitud positiva
hacia el uso de TICs)
8. I find it easier to learn with
ICTs
(8. Creo que es más fácil
aprender con TICs.)
9. I feel fairly confident when
working with ICTs
(9. Me siento muy seguro
cuando trabajo con TICs.)
10. I think ICTs give me the
opportunity to learn more
independently.
(10. Creo que las TICs me dan
la oportunidad de aprender más
independientemente.)
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
11. I prefer to learn with
methods that include the use of
ICTs.
(11. Prefiero aprender con
métodos que incluyan el uso de
TICs)
12. I think that ICTs can help
me develop English
communication skills
(12. Creo que las TICs pueden
ayudarme a desarrollar
destrezas de comunicación.)
This questionnaire has been adapted from MacKeogh (2003, p. 53-54) Student perceptions of
the use of ICTs in European education: Report of a survey, Charles and Issifu (2015, p. 137-
138) Innovation in education: Students’ perceptions of implementing ICT in learning in
second-cycle institutions in Ghana, and Anil (2016, p. 129-143). It has the purpose to obtain
quantitative data of students’ perceptions towards ICTs and their use for learning English.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Appendix D
Semi-structured interview: students’ perception towards innovation
Interview Questionnaire
1. Do you think that vlogging has helped you to improve your English skills? Which ones?
3. How do you think of vlogging has helped you to improve your English skills?
2. Did you face any difficulties when vlogging? Which ones?
4. What did you like the most about vlogging?
5. What didn’t you like about vlogging?
6. Would you like to have more speaking activities that involve the latest technology as a part of the
activities? Explain your answer
This interview has been adapted from studies made by Soa, Shin, Wong, Seoa and Davaasuren (2017)
and Sari (2017) on learners’ perspectives of the use of ICTs such as mobiles, vlogs, and Youtube
channels to improve students’ English speaking skills.
FLUENCY THROUGH AUTHENTIC ORAL PRODUCTION
Appendix E
Descriptive statistics for students’ perspectives about ICTs
Pre-survey Post-survey
Aspect Items N M Sd M Sd Md Sig.
(P)
Attitude
5. I enjoy working
with ICTs 24 3,92 0,88 4,42 0,50 -0,50 0,005
6. I generally feel ok
trying something new
with ICTs. 24 4,08 0,72 4,33 0,64 -0,25 0,011
7. I have a positive
attitude towards
using ICTs 24 4,08 0,88 4,50 0,59 -0,42 0,005
Confidence
8. I find it easier to
learn with ICTs 24 3,96 1,08 4,46 0,72 -0,50 0,01
9. I feel fairly
confident when
working with ICTs 24 3,88 0,85 4,54 0,59 -0,66 0,000
Learning
10. I think ICTs
give me the
opportunity to learn
more independently 24 4,12 0,99 4,5 0,66 -0,4 0,004
11. I prefer to learn
with methods that
include the use of
ICTs. 24 3,67 1,17 4,04 0,96 -0,4 0,017
12. I think that
ICTs can help me
develop English
communication
skills 24 4,33 0,82 4,63 0,5 -0,3 0,032
Note: N= sample M= mean Sd= standard deviation Md: mean difference Sig (P):
Significance